Google is among the many major corporations whose surrogates are getting key roles on Donald Trump’s transition team.
Joshua Wright has been put in charge of transition efforts at the influential Federal Trade Commission after pulling off the rare revolving-door quadruple-play, moving from Google-supported academic work to government – as an FTC commissioner – back to the Google gravy train and now back to the government.
The Intercept has documented how Wright, as a law professor at George Mason University, received Google funding for at least four academic papers, all of which supported Google’s position that it did not violate antitrust laws when it favored its own sites in search engine requests and restricted advertisers from running ads on competitors. George Mason received $762,000 in funding from Google from 2011 to 2013.
Wright then became an FTC commissioner in January 2013, agreeing to recuse himself from Google cases for two years, because of his Google-funded research. He lasted at the FTC until August 2015, returning to George Mason’s law school (now named after Antonin Scalia). But Wright also became an “of counsel” at Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati, Google’s main outside law firm. Wilson Sonsini has represented Google before the FTC.
Wright’s leadership position in the Trump FTC transition flips him back into government work. The FTC has two open seats on its five-member panel, and Chair Edith Ramirez’s term ends in April 2017. So Trump will be able to remake the agency, which has responsibilities over consumer protection and policing anti-competitive business practices, like the employing of monopoly power. Outside of the Justice Department’s Antitrust Division, no government agency is more responsible for competition policy than the FTC.
Whether Wright recommends himself to an FTC commissioner slot or not, it’s clear that he would favor those who see only upside from market consolidation. Indeed, in a New York Times op-ed on Monday, Wright explained his view that “a high level of concentration in an industry simply does not mean the industry lacks competition.” He argued that mergers are often good for consumers because they lower prices and improve product quality.
This flies in the face of a raft not just of common sense, but also of new research from the Council of Economic Advisers, the Federal Reserve, and academics, showing that excessive mergers lead to price hikes, lower productivity, and weakened economic vitality.
The appointment clarifies to some extent how a Trump administration will operate on antitrust policy, especially as it relates to Silicon Valley. Trump’s personal history on the issue is mixed: He sued the NFL over antitrust violations while a team owner in the rival USFL, but also successfully defended himself against charges that he tried to monopolize the casino business in Atlantic City.
During the campaign he presented a populist viewpoint on the issue. Perhaps out of personal animus, Trump has shown a particular willingness to investigate large media companies over antitrust, including threatening to blow up the pending AT&T-Time Warner merger (Time Warner is the parent company of CNN) and vowing to investigate Amazon (whose CEO Jeff Bezos owns the Washington Post). Because of Silicon Valley’s significant support of the Clinton campaign and Google’s deeply intertwined relationship with the Obama presidency, it was thought that Trump would also go after the tech industry. For example, Trump’s Federal Communications Commission transition leader, Jeffrey Eisenach, once supported breaking up Microsoft.
But the selection of Wright, one of Big Tech’s biggest defenders in Washington, changes that calculus. Now it look as if Trump’s high-level attacks on his enemies might not flow down to the appointees inside the bureaucracy, who could be more inclined to wave through big media mergers and decline to enforce high-tech collusion.
Google is currently facing antitrust allegations in Europe. In May, Politico reported that the FTC planned to take a second look at Google’s search bias, three years after they closed an investigation, despite reported recommendations to prosecute from agency staff. Having someone on the Google payroll twice doing hiring for the new Administration may halt any new investigation at the FTC.
Top photo: From left, House Judiciary Committee member Rep. Hank Johnson, Federal Communications Commission Chairman Tom Wheeler, Federal Trade Commission Commissioner Joshua Wright and FCC Commissioner Ajit Pai speak before a committee hearing about Internet regulation in Washington, DC, on March 25, 2015.
I knew I missed many great stories and this is one of them.
I had decided to only way for the Dems to redeem themselves was to move away from the multinational conglomerates, banks, and of course their incestuous relationship w/SV. But we all know that regardless of personal belief, power (and money) go/es to where the power (and money) are, and the Dems don’t want to push their donor class base into the arms of the Repubs.
This leads to the obvious conclusion, which of course, is totally impossible: we have to change the hearts and minds of our beloved titans and create a new economy which doesn’t focus on extracting blood/guts/life from everything.
Let us not forget the extremely cozy relationship the Obama administration has had with google. I believe you giys wrote about it yourself. Under Obama, people from Google were appointed to government boards while maintaining their positions at the tech firm. Google board member John Doerr was appointed to the President’s Council on Jobs and Competitiveness in February 2011. Eric Schmidt has been part of the President’s Council of Advisers on Science and Technology since 2009. He was also more recently appointed to lead the Defense Innovation Advisory Board at the Pentagon.
Google alums work in the departments of State, Defense, Commerce, Education, Justice, and Veterans Affairs. One works at the Federal Reserve, another at the U.S. Agency for International Development. The highest number — 29 — moved from Google into the White House. The State Department had the next highest with just five. The moves from Google to government got more frequent in the later Obama years; 11 occurred in 2014 and 16 in 2015, after only 18 in the entire first term.
On the other side, former staffers from 36 different areas across the government have found a willing employer at Google since 2009. Johanna Shelton was a senior counsel on the House Energy and Commerce Telecommunications Subcommittee. Joshua Wright, a former commissioner of the Federal Trade Commission, rotated into a top position at Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati, one of the law firms that has represented Google.
Nineteen researchers and scientists at NASA, senior analysts at the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, an “information assurance expert” at the National Security Agency, and 32 separate officials with the Obama for America campaign found their way to Google.
Former employees of 12 of the 15 cabinet agencies (Energy, Justice, Defense, Education, State, Treasury, Commerce, Agriculture, Labor, HHS, Homeland Security, and Veterans Affairs) now work at the tech company or its affiliates, led by 16 former Pentagon staffers. The exodus ramped up in the second term, hitting 41 in 2014, compared to just six in 2009.
Seven individuals made a full revolution through the revolving door, either going from Google to government and back again, or from government to Google and back again. This includes Julia Duncan, who left her job as White House personnel officer to go work in Google’s finance department in 2013, and a year later moved to the State Department’s Office of Food Security.
Nathan Parker, a staff software engineer at Google, did a stint in the U.S. Digital Service for four months before returning to Google HQ in Mountain View. Austin Lau was a planner and tech lead for Google India, then became a foreign service officer at the State Department before returning to Google to work on social impact partnerships.
Google lobbyist with the most White House visits, Johanna Shelton, visited 128 times, far more often than lead representatives of the other top-lobbying companies — and more than twice as often, for instance, as Microsoft’s Fred Humphries or Comcast’s David Cohen.
So let us not understate or romanticize the actions of the Obama administration either For the record, I support Sanders and will forever be a socialist, but I resent it when anyone goes out of their to underscore just how much a lot of the crap this new fascist government by Trump will inherit, was set up and already done by Democrats. People make it look like under Obama there was no revolving door and no corporate drain from Congress and vice versa and it is all just starting with Republicans. Democrats have been cozy with CEOs and corporate execs for decades and Trump is just following a long established tradition that the Democrats set up and profited from at the expense of the American people. Last time I looked google pays no taxes and one of its founders renounced US citizenship so he wouldst have to. And these are the people the Democrats, who are ostensibly on our side, gave positions at the highest levels in the government to.
These “unofficial sources” pieces are mildly entertaining, but anyone who takes them as more than 20% likelihood of being true are fools.
Trump needs google to spread (HIS) word – after all the MSM is not going to do it!
Great heads up article, keep watching, plenty to watch in the swamp, hip boots required.
What monsters you have created.
So many Americans are defensive about such things saying they are not to blame for the ills of their corporations and government, but they endorse and fund it all with their votes, taxes and purchases and their lack of activism and opposition. It is Economies of Scale turned into a horror story. The simple solution is to stop using these corporations and stop electing these arseholes. But then the modern world would collapse and blah blah blah… Yeah, right. Surrendering your liberty into the hands of greedy megalomaniacs is always the safer option. For cowards.
With each new revelation about the TTT (trump transition team) the sound of that song by The Who gets louder in my head. You know how it goes: “Meet the new boss . . .”
Is Joshua or the author more uneducated? I’ll go with the author, as Joshua just does what is in his own self-interest.
Why talk about mergers as if they are a free market or “capitalist” approach and hindrance to mergers as a statist approach? Both are completely statist here, obviously. Whether one is better for the economy short term is irrelevant.
Truly free markets exist completely outside this silly fake study of economics. Read Lysander Spooner or Murray Rothbard or any number of studies on anarchism to see what a market could be.
wow
This is what happens when corruption becomes so widespread and intertwined. People become so accustomed to the circumstances, they no longer know what corruption is and instead resort to phrases like “legal”, “agreed to” or “differences with” as if murder can be relative – oh, pardon me, forgot, murder is relative depending on who’s doing the killin’ and who’s doing the die’n.
I guess that means that draining the swamp means sinking the economy.
You can’t blame corrupt fools for using vague language to get away with their crimes. The brilliance in using euphemisms is that by the time a decent amount of people discover what policies where hidden with their use, they’ve already settled on arguing over something else. A kind of bait and switch to pull everyone apart over time. Sadly, it’s just so damn effective.
Either he is incoherent idiot or he adopted method of Stalin who purposefully set up compete interest to let them fight each othe and let Trump rule from behind, while factions are weaken by constant fighting, but I think it is former one.
So much for the anti establishment candidate, the great Orange Reformer.
You should hyperlink to the Wright piece you reference in the NYT.
Wright is saying concentration and competition are distinct concepts, and an increase in concentration does not necessarily lead to an increase in prices. Both of these statements are verifiably true. Furthermore, the implication that Wright fails to understand the Fed, CEA, and academics is wholly unfounded and must be based on a misreading of all four parties.
Wright is well-respected by economists for understanding economists, and I actually first met Wright when he was the keynote speaker at a reception for the Nobel recipients for 2012 — funny how somebody can be asked to speak about a Nobel in economics, with the recipients in the audience, yet Dayen can just dismiss him as flying “in the face…of common sense….” and all the right people (the same people Dayen will shit on next column for being so much dumber than he is).
The conflicts of interest are there and legitimate concerns. But the article focuses on making Wright look stupid, and it, uh, backfires.
Cave, lector.
I don’t take The Intercept seriously because of its’ knowledge of the intricacies of economic policy (they are clearly biased left). The journalism on the conflict of interest is, personally, of much more import.
Now the US, and the rest of the world, will see the true takeover (rather than ruling behind the throne in the darkness) of a government by the corporations and the 1%. Personally, I don’t Trump will last the full four years and the republicans (sic) are already at work to try and remove him.
Of course, Google has stronger ties to the Clintons, as Wikileaks and Sourcefeed have documented.
Given the ties between Google and Clinton and Trump, can their “Don’t be evil” slogan be construed as false advertising?
This work complements Liza Gross’s article posted today on TI.
Good conspiracy piece.
Try this one at ComputerWorld:
http://www.computerworld.com/article/2470604/government-it/seven-facts-about-obama-s-silicon-valley-dinner.html
http://www.computerworld.com/article/2513311/it-management/jobs–zuckerberg-get-prime-spots-at-obama-dinner.html
http://www.cnn.com/2011/TECH/innovation/02/18/steve.jobs.obama/